Sochi: the most corrupt and immoral Games since Hitler

http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=14-P13-00005&segmentID=2
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/10581829/Sochi-Olympics-Nothing-but-a-monstrous-scam-says-Kremlin-critic.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zmzJ1ndHOQ

After Salt Lake, Athens, and Beijing, we know that we can't count on the Olympics for integrity, fiscal resp., and principles - but they've outdone themselves this year. These games will cost over $50B (what is reported to the public at least)... that is more than the combined value of all NBA teams, or the GDP of Bulgaria. Just for a month of sports that only about 10% of the world cares about (or knows how to play, or can even afford to play). Studies have shown that it's very hard to achieve positive ROI on a major modern sporting event, but that price tag is just ludicrous. It's like Iraq with less murder and torture - fat gov't contracts handed out to political pals to build bridges to nowhere with no durable value to the country. Abused Russian people deserve better - from their homophobic, megalomaniac leader especially, but from us too. 

Maybe the best thing we can do is boycott such travesties, and petition our leaders to protest. That might send a message to the event organizers/int'l orgs that their "customers" won't tolerate their horrible choice of host nations (and the social-environmental implications). Same goes for Brazil this summer for the World Cup.

I would hope the celebrity athletes and coaches would boycott as well, but I understand that their careers are short and they don't have many chances to medal. Even Jesse Owens went to compete in Nazi Germany (but at least by winning, he made a social statement - it's not like Shaun White winning another medal will do anything for gay rights or anti-corruption). I know there is no chance that NBC and other media companies would boycott, because they lust after the ad revenue. Forget moral principles, they would probably love to buy the rights to broadcast the hunger games (hosted by the Donald of course) if the audience was big enough.

Sochi is just Putin pissing on a tree trunk like a junkyard dog, or a spoiled brat on a global reality TV show. We shouldn't indulge him any more. We boycotted Soviet games in the past when that nation had more moral leaders than Putin.

Good discussion on Penn State scandal

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201207240900

I took a class from the guest on this radio show (Cal sports sociology prof and 49ers consultant Harry Edwards) when I was in high school and he is really insightful (C - were you in that course with me too?). He described how PSU football has become "too big to fail" (biggest student body and alum network in the US, one of the most famous football programs, huge $, TV contracts, scholarships, etc.), and there are so many emotional and financial vested interests that they couldn't tolerate any loose ends, even if it meant keeping child abuse quiet.

Paterno has a long record of showing above-and-beyond concern for his players and community (promoted high standards of conduct and graduation rates among his players, even spoke out against black athlete exploitation ahead of his time), so it's unlikely he just didn't care about those kid victims. That's what makes this lapse so shocking, and strengthens the argument that even such a historic and principled personality was powerless to speak up. I guess he was the victim (not meant to denigrate the true victims of this tragedy) of cognitive dissonance: he knew that even if he "did the right thing", the PSU-football-industrial-complex wouldn't have, so what's the point of fighting an impossible battle? It would have been "noble" for him to resign in protest and maybe go to the media (not the style of old school guys like him), but he knew that his players and the fan base were also counting on him. He didn't want to let his "family" down either (and PSU football is really serious about the "family" thing - it's not just cliche), so that meant letting the kids down instead. Though how can Paterno teach his players about living life right and being good men when he didn't walk the talk when he needed to? Like the Catholic sex abuse, the reputation and preeminence of the organization come first. Big money sport is very similar to big money religion and business, so unfortunately we've seen a lot of this stuff contributing to other scandals too. Powerful organizations and culture can enable their members to reach new heights, but ironically they can also force even moral, prominent individuals into bad decisions that end up hurting/destroying the org.

I don't know much about the NCAA and college sports, but the punishment is also kind of fishy and may not produce the intended results. From the Reggie Bush mess, USC was punished similarly (though much less) with wins erased and postseason ineligibility (not sure if they were fined also). They are another football powerhouse, with a coach who doesn't nearly have the likability and integrity record of Paterno, at least pre-2012. They bounced back rather well, and may now be a top ranked team coming into the new season. So it may not be the end of the world for PSU football (but who cares, it's just amateur football played by barely-literate teens?). Some wondered why the NCAA didn't give PSU the "death penalty" as they did to SMU for illegally paying players and other violations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Methodist_University_football_scandal). They were banned from intercollegiate competition for a year, but it really hurt the program for a decade since they needed to rebuild recruiting and such. Also SMU de-emphasized football and actually tried to be an institution of higher learning, so while they did recently appear in a minor bowl, they are not a top-ranked program anymore. Obviously that can't be so for PSU, where people literally enroll there for the football team (silly I know, but it's a free country). Though the NCAA's ruling has basically communicated to schools that they can practically kill someone, and their programs will not get the death penalty. But pay players a small fraction of the huge sums you are making off their talents? That is somehow worse than covering up child rape - because it perturbs the system. And we wonder why others think Americans are crazy! And it's not like SMU and USC are the only culprits. The big programs east of the Mississippi are probably just as corrupt, but the NCAA doesn't go after them out of fear, favoritism, or other COI.

I have always had a problem with collective punishment. 99.9% of the PSU community didn't know about the criminality going on (unlike SMU where it was pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain). Now their lives will be forever affected. I know they can't expect to have everything go back to the way it was after a big scandal. The program would change even if Sandusky never existed; Paterno would retire someday, PSU would go through slumps, etc. But now innocent people are hurting because of the misdeeds of a few. It's like economic sanctions against Iran/Cuba, or more extreme - nuking Hiroshima. Why not just ban the perpetrators for life, but leave the rest of the program alone - apart from assigning a special auditor and requiring extra training, charity, etc.? I guess the PSU punishment is kind of like letting Lehman fail out of principle? But it's not like other schools are going to clean house now and make sure they haven't been hiding any abuses. They're just going to hide their misdeeds more carefully.

I just don't know the point of it all, it's just college sports. The universities in most other nations don't even have organized intermural sports - if athletes are serious and good, then they are cultivated at a young age by the pro clubs using private money, and don't attend school anymore. You can be a big time jock or a serious student, but not both. The highest paid people in US academics now are not Nobel winners or historical figures, but football coaches. The coaches at Cal and UCLA make over $2M a year (the highest paid public employees in CA) and have probably gotten raises while academic staff were furloughed/laid off and tuition has gone up 50% over the last few years. But football is part of the college "arms race". Schools want to look awesome in order to attract better employees and students. Everyone loves a winner. Some sports make a lot of money for powerful people. Sadly or not, it's more valuable for Cal to spend big $ to get 2 more wins per season, rather than continue to fund an ethnic studies program or expand a medical research lab. And who knows - those intellectual enterprises could be total wastes or money, or possibly lead to significant, lucrative discoveries for the school and humanity. But the +2 wins are definite financial, recruiting, and PR boons, so I guess it's easier and less risky to invest for that goal?

The outrageously corrupt NCAA football bowls

http://www.hbo.com/real-sports-with-bryant-gumbel#/real-sports-with-bryant-gumbel/episodes/0/174-episode/video/cashin-in-clip.html/eNrjcmbOUM-PSXHMS8ypLMlMDkhMT-VLzE1lLtQsy0xJzYeJO+fnlaRWlDDnszGySSeWluQX5CRW2pYUlaayMXIyMgIAacUXOA==

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2016261023_apfbcsugarbowltaxviolation.html

We already know that major college sports are corrupt, exploitative, and dysfunctional, but the actual numbers are shocking (thanks to an HBO Real Sports investigation and others). First, it's inconceivable that the org's running each bowls are classified as non-profit charities, despite earning over $250M combined each year. There used to be about 10 bowls, but now the number is up to 35. Even the most successful charities on the planet don't grow that fast, only scams and bubbles do.

The bowl org's claim they are charities because they purport to give 75% of revenues to the participating schools - institutions that benefit society in many ways. Yes, the perennial bowl participant football factories like OSU, Nebraska, and Miami have really used the money to provide top education and discoveries for America (often head coaches are paid much higher salaries than the most famous and productive professors). But in actuality, the avg. school payment is about 55% for the dozen or so bowls whose financial records were made available. The poorly-named Humanitarian Bowl only gave 27% to the schools. When confronted with these facts, bowl reps say they are saving the rest for posterity to pay out to schools "at a future date." Well schools are laying off employees, raising fees, and letting buildings crumble NOW.

The problem here is similar to the race to host the next Olympics or over-bidding to win an auction. Schools and communities are so obsessed with getting to a bowl (and the perceived value it entails) that they fail to consider whether it's really cost-effective. Part of the contract between the bowl and schools often involves paying for their own travel, and a guarantee to sell a block of tickets to fans, or the school will have to eat the cost of empty seats. But it's hard for small schools to get alumni and fans to travel across the country during winter holiday time (and eat the big costs of tickets, hotel. etc.), so some schools predictably end up on the short end.

The bowl gets paid no matter what, and then short-changes the schools with smaller contributions. Some bowls even forced the school bands to buy tickets even though they were providing free entertainment during halftime. So knowing all this, why do some cash-strapped schools still fall into the trap? They fall in love with the "prestige" of participating, and many coaches/athletic directors are paid bonuses for reaching a bowl. The bowl org's claim that despite these concerns, schools come out ahead in the end because the publicity will increase alumni donations and fan/student interest for the future. Of course it's very hard to quantify and verify this benefit, so we just have to trust them. And apparently schools do.

So maybe the bowls short-change schools, but they give back to the community, right? Bowls claimed that they've given "tens of millions of dollars" to communities and charities each year. But according to tax documents, the grand total last year was about $4M, or <2% of revenues. But that giving is still generous, right? Well not if you consider the tax incentives and other perks that cities and politicians offer to the bowls, sometimes totaling in the millions. Again, bowl reps repeat the Olympics argument that the event "pays for itself" with all the extra tourism and commerce. Sure, tell that to Greece. Remember that cities also have to eat the clean-up, security, traffic congestion, and other costs. The show examined the example of the elite Sugar Bowl and the financially depressed host New Orleans. The Sugar Bowl gave $1M to Louisianans, but took $6M from their state leaders. Former LA governor Blanco took thousands of dollars from the Sugar Bowl in campaign contributions, which is technically illegal due to the bowl's tax status. And in return, Blanco has helped to maintain this profitable arrangement, even to the detriment of her Katrina-ravaged, cash-hungry state.

Bowls are also lobbying politicians to fight any changes to the system that would hurt them financially, such as a move to a nationwide playoffs postseason format. They've used the profits that didn't go to schools/communities to sponsor lavish trips and "retreats" to discuss strategy and woo VIPs. The org's defend these actions as legitimate efforts to maintain and improve the quality of the bowls. How about executive compensation? The heads of MSF, Amnesty Int'l, and the Salvation Army all make less than $300K/year. The heads of some bowls take in $500-700K, despite managing a much smaller org than the true charities. In some cases, "honorary execs" are paid hundreds of thousands for a few hours of seasonal work per week. Despite their ludicrous pay, a former Fiesta Bowl exec (J Junker) was found to use bowl funds on golf and strip clubs. They give the usual Wall Street excuse - the market sets the going rate to recruit and retain the talent necessary for the job. So I guess "the market" just values a guy who sets up a single football game more than a guy who is in charge of helping millions of Americans day in, day out.

Again, imagine the opportunity costs of bowl profits that could have gone to the causes that they're supposed to go to. Nonprofits are not taxed because they serve a public need, but it seems that the bowls are making off with millions while actually undermining some critical public services.

The interesting tale of the Nets' move to Brooklyn, and what is says about the lockout

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7021031/the-nets-nba-economics

Does Jay-Z have to look cool all the time, even with a tilted hardhat? What Ratner did will definitely be studied at Harvard Business School for years.

The silly owners-vs-players argument seems to be the same for NBA and NFL. The players' assets are their special sports talents. The owners' assets are the real estate and team name, under the protective umbrellas of the NBA/NFL monopolies. But say the Jerry Joneses and Mark Cubans of the world decided to retire and donate the franchises to charity. The players wouldn't be screwed. A new bunch of billionaires would build new arenas, pay the athletes probably higher salaries, and the only difference would be the New York Knights (TM) instead of the Brooklyn Nets (TM). Say Lebron and Brady decided to retire as well - their presence would be missed much more.

Profits (economic rent) should go to the scarcest, more demanded resources - in this case the players. People don't watch the games because of who owns the teams. The only reason the owners have such bargaining leverage is the anti-competitive nature of pro sports, so that other interested billionaires can't make better offers. Some thought it was ridiculous that NFL stars complained that they were treated like "slaves," but there are some undeniable similarities (and obviously some notable differences, like their still-enormous salaries, which should be bigger at market rates though). The AFL, USFL, and ABA tried to offer legit alternatives (in some cases paying players better and offering a more entertaining brand of sport), but the NFL/NBA used their legal-political-financial muscle to absorb or ruin them. Check out the ESPN "30 for 30" documentary on the USFL if you have time. They actually won an anti-trust case against the NFL, but they foolishly sought only $1 in symbolic damages, so the legal fees from that fight ruined them (and so did Donald Trump, seriously).

http://30for30.espn.com/film/small-potatoes-who-killed-the-usfl.html

So for the owners to piss and moan that they're going broke is a joke. If they don't like the business, then quit and start a hedge fund. There will be a line a block long to buy their franchise - since for a rich guy, it's such a rare feather to have in your cap, like a Picasso. It's not meant to make money (even though it does, plenty), it's a hobby to them. It's like the rich CEOs going to DC to beg for bailouts in their private jets and $10,000 suits.

"The rich have gone from being grateful for what they have to pushing for everything they can get. They have mastered the arts of whining and predation, without regard to logic or shame. In the end, this is the lesson of the NBA lockout. A man buys a basketball team as insurance on a real estate project, flips the franchise to a Russian billionaire when he wins the deal, and then — as both parties happily count their winnings — what lesson are we asked to draw? The players are greedy."

Emphasis was mine.

No Olympics for Chicago

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news?slug=reu-riosponsors&prov=reuters&type=lgns

Man, Rio gets the 2014 W Cup AND the 2016 Olympics? Not that I wanted Chicago to get it; that city sucks. All the tourists will get mugged. I guess there has never been an Olympics in South America, so they are playing affirmative action. And I think all the hoopla over the Obamas going over to Denmark to lobby was BS. The IOC is so damn corrupt anyway. If we wanted the Olympics so bad, Obama should just buy the IOC with our tax dollars and have them pick Chicago (why not, add them to the stable with AIG and GM!).

Anyone who loves where they live doesn't get out enough. Like would any of us want the Olympics in SF? Of course not because we know it sucks. Most cities suck. How the hell can you love the city you live in? Unless your'e rich like Michelle Obama I guess, only going to eat at Spago and shopping at Bloomie's. Plus the belief that Olympics make money for the host city is actually false (except if you include increases in international trade following the games):

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/business/july-dec09/olympics_10-01.html

It took one city 30 years to pay off its Olympics debt, and that was during pre-9/11 security cheaper times! Chicago can't even figure out its train and traffic problems, how can it handle a Games?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92633264

--------

my coworker said the RIO is worse in terms of crime versus chicago against visitors. this is unsubstantiated but I thought I'd share it. did you read all the articles on China after the Olympics and how the Bird's nest stadium is being remodeled into a shopping center?

--------

OMG so typical for China. Where will they hold their big sporting events then? In the rice fields out back?

Yeah true about Rio. A lot of drug violence and slums too (ever seen "City of God"?). If they wanted no crime they shoulda picked Tokyo or Stockholm or something. But if I'm gonna get jacked by a gang, I'd rather it be down in Rio with beaches, honeys, and Carnival!